Origin: Spirits of the Past
|
IMDB rating: 6.50 Plot: It is 300 years into the future. Earth’s environment had been devastated by mankind’s own foolish plans and humankind is beleaguered by the sentient forests which they have awoken. The world balance is tipped when a young boy named Agito stumbles across a machine that glowed in a strange blue hue inside a forbidden sanctuary. The machine, which has preserved a beautiful girl named Tula from the past, is activated. Tula has a “mission” that had been entrusted to her by the past … |
Actors: Katsuji Ryo,Hamaguchi Masaru,Fukawa Toshikazu,Endo Kenichi,Osugi Ren,Tanaka Hideyuki,Mugihito,Hoki Katsuhisa,Koyama Takehiro,Animation,Drama,Romance,Sci-Fi,
Atheists did you know that "RADIOMETRIC" dating has not prove that the earth is billons of years old?
Therefore, the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years !! Mankind did not evolve 4 million years ago on an Earth which is 4.5 billion years old in a universe which was "big-banged" into existence 18-20 billion years in the distant past. Jesus Christ, the Creator Incarnate, said He made mankind male and female in the beginning (Mark 10:6), and that when the heavens and the earth were commanded into being (Gen 1:1), they "stood up together" (Isa 48:13) not billions of years apart !!
These Scientists have flat out lied to the public for hundreds of years.
The study of origins and earth prehistory is really beyond the powers of the scientific method. NO HUMANS WERE PRESENT TO OBSERVE THE EVENTS, AND THE EVENTS WHICH OCCURED CANNOT BE REPEATED EXPERIMENTALLY.
All of the evidence from the rocks is circumstantial and can be interpreted in various ways. Therefore it is not possible to "PROVE" that the earth is billions of years old.
You cannot rely on radiometric dating methods as a reliable method.
" The evidence generally supports the rates of radioactive decay are constant within narrow limits. It is possible that unusual conditions such as exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could greatly have changed isotopes ratios or the rates at some time in the past."
Source: Jueneman, F.B., Industrial Research, 14 p. 15
Cook, Melvin A., op. cit. (ref. 136), pp. 41-62
This conclusion validates a young earth. We were created in the image of the infinite personal Spirit, God the Creator.
So, let’s say for the sake of argument that you’re right and radiometic whatever is not reliable. How does it logically follow that the bible is right? Why not any one of the thousands of other equally unprovable creation myths? Why that one?
mo in the middle | Dec 31, 2009
Nice try.
Staci J, Atheist-Pancake Lover | Dec 31, 2009
LOL
Random | Dec 31, 2009
Christians, did you know that it doesn’t matter?
nastyprismsgoodsir | Dec 31, 2009
Holy Shiat! that means those nuclear reactors down at the end of my street are in danger of running away! Cause damn, if half-lives are unreliable (that is what you’re saying when you say radiometric dating is unreliable) then those babies can go prompt critical right now! I’m farked!
tai D | Dec 31, 2009
This conclusion validates that you don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about and that you are nothing but a parrot. Study geology and earth sciences for a few years then try again.
Higgs Boson | Dec 31, 2009
The earth is billions of years old
lynn | Dec 31, 2009
Have you ever heard of mathematics?
Not a Member | Dec 31, 2009
There are about 20 methods. Specifically what is wrong with each?
And even if the first statement was true, the second wouldn’t automatically follow.
Gazoo | Dec 31, 2009
Oh, so believe some ‘book’ that nobody alive is able to put a date on as to when it really was written or who wrote it, etc. is better?
Rocks Have been scientifically dated as being billions of years old! And it doesn’t matter if your story is literally true or not! Why Couldn’t we be created (in our souls) in the image and likeness of Deity no matter When it happened? Your beliefs wish to invalidate beliefs and religions that were around for thousands of years earlier than you even say life began on this planet.
If we cannot prove the earth is billions of years old, you also cannot prove that it is only 6,000 year old.
Get over it and get a life!
harpertara | Dec 31, 2009
Alrighty
Let’s compare
Radiometric – Good Scientiffic Research with plenty of backed up examples.
VS
The Apparently Holy Bible – No Scientific Evidence whatsoever, with no clue given to who possible wrote it.
I know which one I chose.
Luke | Dec 31, 2009
So, your ancient book is more reliable than science?
Go back to your bible thumping church you ignoramus.
science | Dec 31, 2009
"These Scientists have flat out lied to the public for hundreds of years."
Considering "Radiometric" dating was invented in 1905 your math is way off…I can see why you would think that the earth is only 6000 years old…
Uranium-lead is one of the oldest[1] and most refined of the radiometric dating schemes, with a routine age range of about 1 million years to over 4.5 billion years, and with routine precisions in the 0.1-1 percent range.[2] The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 704 million years. These decay routes occur via a series of alpha (and beta) decays, in which 238U with daughter nuclides undergo eight total alpha and six beta decays whereas 235U with daughters only experience seven alpha and four beta decays.[3]
The existence of two ‘parallel’ uranium-lead decay routes (238U to 206Pb and 235U to 207Pb) leads to multiple dating techniques within the overall U-Pb system. The term ‘U-Pb dating’ normally implies the coupled use of both decay schemes in the ‘concordia diagram’ (see below). However, use of a single decay scheme (usually 238U to 206Pb) leads to the U-Pb isochron dating method, analogous to the rubidium-strontium dating method. Finally, ages can also be determined from the U-Pb system by analysis of Pb isotope ratios alone. This is termed the lead-lead dating method. Clair Cameron Patterson, an American geochemist who pioneered studies of uranium-lead radiometric dating methods, is famous for having used it to obtain one of the earliest accurate estimates of the age of the Earth.
Maybe you should research a bit more!!
Muddy9069 | Dec 31, 2009
I’m not an atheist, but I even think your making a little bit fool of yourself. They don’t believe in God because theres no proff that he exists. Leave them alone will ya? Let well enough alone. Geez…
Jenny V | Dec 31, 2009
Amazing!!! I can’t believe how incredibly ignorant you are!!!!
no wait, maybe I can…
A couple of points I’ll chuck in for free, since you are obviously either incredibly ignorant, or a poe…
Nowhere is it written in the bible that the world is 6,000 years old. That is a figure formulated in the 1700’s.
A couple of bible versus doesn’t disprove evolutionary theory
Christianity has flat out lied for thousands of years
NO HUMANS WERE PRESENT TO OBSERVE CREATION EITHER…In fact humans were well and truly established on this earth at that time, so it would probably have come as something of a surprise.
As with all things human made, there is always going to be a margin of error, this conclusion validates that radiometric dating isn’t perfect.
Tristan's War On Ignorance | Dec 31, 2009
Let me get this straight. You think that by quote mining a few quotes, you not only invalidate centuries of research, but also validate your belief? Overlooking your doubtful knowledge on the subject, do you honestly believe that by refuting the age of the earth you validate your Christian belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old? Do you not realise that to validate your claim, you not only have to refute the scientific data but also provide evidence to substantiate your opposing belief?
Soulless – The Anti-Cat | Dec 31, 2009
The earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Want to hop in my TARDIS and find out for yourself?
The Doctor | Dec 31, 2009
Yet another failure: http://www.answersincreation.org/henke.h tm
Will you folks ever learn?
JerryMc | Dec 31, 2009
This entry was posted
on Sunday, February 7th, 2010 at 12:28 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.